Approximately two weeks ago, The Louisiana Democratic Party decided to unleash ads that would criticize Bobby Jindal’s past religious writings and would question other areas of his record.
At that time, I said that I hoped the Democratic Party would not be the attack dog just as I had urged the Republican Party to refrain from playing that same role. I felt it would be much better if the candidates spoke for themselves and even criticized each other, when appropriate.
Obviously, that did not occur. Instead, the Democratic Party went on with their commercials which had been produced and now there is a major controversy over the one commercial over which I personally had real concerns.
That commercial deals with the “R” word, religion.
The commercials appears to be designed to make Jindal look bad among Christians who are not Catholics. Jindal’s campaign manager claims it is a new low even for a Democrat.
Also, in response, the Jindal campaign claims that the Democrats have taken old published writings and have distorted the truth. I have not read the source materials from which the writings were extracted but I have read other Jindal ruminations that evidenced a conflicted young man. However, others have told me that the writings that have been advertised during the commercials were of recent vintage when he was working for the state, but to me, I am more concerned about whether the past matters to the present.
Two weeks ago, I submitted that the commercials would hurt the Democratic Party unless they were of recent vintage—meaning his relatively recent state of mind.
What Jindal thought or did when he was in college or even a state employee (assuming that rumor was true) is not as important to me than who he is today.
As I have written recently, I have had occasional dealings with Jindal, have followed his career somewhat and absolutely do not perceive him to be anti-protestant, anti-Lutheran, or anti-any-religion. I just find him anti-debate at a time when this state really needs substantive information, not zany commercials by any candidate or state party.
However, there are two areas that do concern me about Jindal and will just go into the crucible in my own decision-making process in judging whom I would like to take us into the so-called “Promise Land” of recovery.
I am automatically suspicious about any politician who is constantly using the name of the Lord and asking for money to feed his or her career. This is an area that Jindal has excelled very well and it has raised him a lot of cash. It is also a practice of many politicians running for state and national office.
Jindal has evoked the Lord on numerous occasions during the past campaigns and particularly during his run for Governor.
I have no doubt that Bobby Jindal is sincere in his respect for God and his devotion to his beliefs. At the same time, in many ways, the combination of religion and politics is normally emotional dynamite.
That dynamite exploded Monday when Jindal’s campaign manager Tim Teepell made an unfortunate statement that suddenly married an obscure writing over which the Democrats would have been “crucified”. Teepell made the “R” word into an issue of the present.
Teepell said, “But the political handlers of the old-guard intend to use these writings to mock Bobby's Faith. These political operatives are cunning and manipulative. They say that the attacks are aimed solely at Bobby's Christian Faith. But, make no mistake, these desperate political operatives are launching an attack on ALL people of Faith. They want to secularize our society and undermine our values. They mock Bobby's Faith because they want all of us to be ashamed of our Faith, and to be timid about our values. They want God out of the courtrooms, out of the classroom, out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and out of politics.”
First, the commercial which I saw did not attack “All people of Faith”. They do just the opposite. They allege that Bobby Jindal is anti-other-Christian denomination-other-than-Catholic which I do not believe he is, at all. Nor, do I believe Jindal is anti-Jewish, or anti-Muslim or anti-any religion, other than being against anti-religious fanatics that would blow up innocent women and children in the name of religion.
Then Teepell said those attacking Jindal wanted to secularize our society. No doubt, there are some who want religion out of government and that entire debate will continue as the US Supreme Court changes. But, there are many Democrats and independents who are very religious, who want private prayers in schools, who want swearing of bibles under oath, who want multi-denomination cooperation but who do not want this nation to be run by select individuals whose public policies reflect their own religious views.
Instead of the Republicans and Jindal scoring a homerun on an issue that the Democratic Party clearly had fudged, the Jindal campaign has made the religious issue an “us” against “them” debate. That does not mean that the Democrats are off the hook for they really need to show Jindal’s current state of mind, not what he was at a younger age, even if he was a high state employee when he wrote about serious religious matters discussed in the commercial.
But, when you couple Jindal’s constant reference to God in helping him make decisions with his campaign manager’s implicit insult that the opposition is anti-God, it reverberates religion into a campaign issue, exactly what the Democrats wanted in the first place.
Being outwardly religious and believing in God should not impair the judgment of any high elected official. Governor Blanco has used the word God numerous times in her writings and even in her legislative addresses.
What the Democrats were trying to do is to show that Bobby Jindal is a religious fanatic and that public decisions would be made by his own personal religious beliefs. Teepell’s statement unfortunately for Jindal’s campaign has provided the Democrats such fodder whether it reflects an accurate portrayal of Jindal as a person, or not.
Religion and politics has a ying and a yang. It can provide solace and direction to those in government during times of grief. It can also be enough justification to do the horrific such as suicide bombings. In this case, it might be enough to have succeeded in detonating political campaign explosions, Louisiana style.
In the scheme of things, if there is any real history behind this entire debate, in my view, this is it: Bobby Jindal started the debate with his constant references to God in his decision-making process, then using God’s name in the same emails asking for money. The Democratic party then fouled it up by using old content and not new proof to paint Jindal into a religious fanatic. Nor have they proven that Jindal is anti-Christian denominations which they now must do since they opened up this particular door for debate. Then, the Jindal campaign turned the discussion into a slander against people who love God and country but might just see things a little different than the person running and leading the gubernatorial race.
Ultimately, I am not scared by Jindal’s devotion to God and if it provides him solace and direction, so be it. If the Democrats have any current information to show that Jindal is currently anti-anything, they should prove it or else they should start praying how to get out of this mess they created. But, Jindal should reign in his campaign manager on this issue since Teepell over-generalized about a matter of much importance to many. Many republicans and democrats are god loving. They might be Christians, or Jewish, Hindu, Buddihsts and even Muslims. They are good Americans and make up the fabric of our state and national society. We are not one monolithic country and many of us vote based upon that still small voice within us, based upon free choice that we believe God gave us to run our own lives. Many of us do not want our lives to be dictated by our politicians’ political beliefs-- whether those politicians sit on the right or on the left.
Let us hope that this holy war of ends soon and we can move on to substantive issues such as rebuilding Louisiana. We have real needs such as economic development, education, New Orleans, crime, corruption, poor education, insurance matters which are burning a hole in our recovery. We really should keep religion out of our politics whether we are raising money for campaigns or trying to show what is in our candidates minds and what are in their hearts.
On the same issue, on Tuesday, Timmy Teepell issued a statement regarding the religious commercials.Here is that statement:
The Democratic Party of Louisiana has attacked Bobby Jindal for his decision to publicly profess his faith, and is lying about his writings to try and divide the Faith Community. Bobby Jindal has never been shy or vague about his belief that Jesus Christ died for all and rose again to save us for our sins. He has given his testimony before hundreds of congregations and groups, and he has put his faith in writing.
The Democrats reference one article written when Bobby was a young Christian, and then blatantly misrepresent his beliefs. The ad falsely alleges that Bobby "has referred to Protestant religions as 'scandalous', 'depraved', 'selfish' and heretical.'" It goes on to falsely state that "Bobby Jindal doubts the morals and questions the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals and other Protestant religions."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to read the article Bobby wrote as a student will see a profession of faith by a young Christian who was seeking, in his words, "to follow Jesus wherever He leads."
Bobby's article describes how the Lord led him to accept Christ, join the Catholic Church, and it expresses his wishes that the Catholic Church follow good examples of devotion set by Baptist and Pentecostals and Lutherans and Calvinists.
In fact, contrary to the Democrat attack ad, the only time in this article in which Bobby mentions another denomination specifically is when he is listing faith practices he wishes his church would adopt - like the "energy and fervor" of Baptists and Pentecostals and the "stirring preaching" of Lutherans.
The very first sentence of Bobby's article says exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Democrats accuse him: He said, "we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins."
In an article in today's Baton Rouge Advocate entitled "Jindal: Democrats' ad 'twists' religious view", the paper acknowledges that the inflammatory words were taken out of context. In fact, Bobby only uses the words "depraved" and "selfish" in his article when quoting John Calvin in the context of the doctrine of "original sin", and the word "heretical" never even appears in the article.
The conclusion to Bobby's article says exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Democrats allege - he said "I am thrilled by the recent ecumenical discussions that have resulted in Catholics and Evangelicals discovering what they have in common, in terms of both theology and morality..."
The article the Democrats attack sums up Bobby's belief: "Christ's death on the Cross truly negates the effects of sin, in both our temporal and heavenly bodies; insofar as we accept the new life He offers us, we are reborn and "washed" (Jn. 13:8) -- i.e., restored to a state of grace so that we might have eternal life."
Our state has seen plenty of low-down political tricks but attacking a born-again Christian for his public testimony is beyond the pale. In a time when the outside world wants to impose purely secular standards on the rest of us, we cannot allow a man's Christian faith to be misrepresented and misused to divide Believers in this state.
Every Louisianian of faith should let the people who made this ad know that they believe we need leaders who are not ashamed of their Faith. If you would like to join the chorus of Believers who are speaking out against this ad, please send me an email and let me know.
Timmy Teepell
Campaign Manager
Jindal '07
P.S. Copyright Laws prevent us from mass emailing the text of the entire article. If you would like a full copy of the article you can purchase one from the New Oxford Review.
Enough Mud slinging already!...when is enough enough?!...Although I have remained pro-Bobby Jindal, I have been greatly disappointed in his attempts to fire back at Boasso's attacks, and in this past week, his ad against Georges was completely uncalled for. My husband and I have been very supportive of Jindal in this campaign, but in seeing recent ads paid for by Friends of Bobby Jindal, we were not impressed by his stooping so low. He should have stood his ground and refused to play dirty...A candidate who feels the need to use the flaws and mishaps of others in his campaign ads obviously has no real material. It is quite childish and unnecessary. There is talk that this last add attacking Georges may have cost Bobby the election...we'll see on the 20th...
Written by AshleyV.
on 10/19/2007
4up: Actually, I have pointed out on jindalisbad.com where the Democratic Party got it wrong in that commercial and I also state that I would have never ran it had i been given the choice. But you just LOVE spreading lies about me so don't get the truth get in the way of your attacks against me.
Written by Dan
on 8/28/2007
The only significant and undisputable fact about this issue is that the Democrat Party of Louisiana tooks words and phrases OUT OF CONTEXT and used them for malicious purposes.
Bobby's faith, his opinion of other faiths, and the lack of faith of others is totally irrelevant.
When a statement by anyone, starts with a lie, contains a lie, or ends in a lie, the whole statement is a lie.
What the Democrat Party did is egregious. Daniel Zimmerman's defense of such reprehensible behavior is insulting.
Tony G, you should have taken my advice and stayed clear of this.
The overwhelming INDEPENDENT analysis of the Democrat ad is that it was a distortion of the truth.
The overwhelming comment by clergy is that the ad was wrong and that Bobby's writings were not offensive AT ALL.
Whatever poison is derived from this issue, the blame will always fall on those that initiated the first blow. Had the Democrat party been honest and moral in their decisions, this would not be an issue at all.
Every decent person in this state should demand an apology from Whittington and every member of the Democrat Party Committee should offer their apology, as well. After his apology, Whittington should attempt a graceful exit upon his resignation.
Written by 4unionparish
on 8/28/2007
I think its terrible when people critize someone because of their belief in God. Have they forgotten who created them
and that without God they can do nothing. They believe theydo
great things on their own.They will come to a rude awaking.If our nation ever needed God, its right now. Thank the Lord that
we have many Christians praying for our nation, because we have
certainlly become like Sodom and Gomara. I wonder how much longer God will put up with us.
Written by Jack Cormier
on 8/27/2007
RhettsWife: I agree with you that someone's religion shouldn't be a deciding factor. It never is with me. I don't care if the person is a Muslim, a Jew, a Catholic or a Protestant. My point though is that Jindal has used so much of his religion in his campaign for Governor and he shouldn't be surprised that people will take jabs at what he has said about religion. I personally wouldnt have chosen to run those ads if I was in charge of the Democratic Party. I would have focused on the "coronation" and "best actor". But the ad IS correct when it states that Jindal insulted Protestants. Read what he wrote, he says that their views are flawed because they dont follow the Catholic Chuch (since the Catholic church is the only entity that is capable, in Jindals eyes) to interpret the bible.
Written by Dan
on 8/23/2007
Richard P., dear. We had bypassed your response but must remark that we consider it to be one of the most intelligent responses to the question of Jindal's candidacy that we have seen posted anywhere. Thank you for your expertise with the written word and your logical and cognitive ability. Dear, we are not being facetious in nature.
Written by
on 8/23/2007
Dan, dear. You asked "When someone uses religion to win an election, doesn't that open the door for people to use that person's religious statements to counter the campaign as well?" The fact of one's religion should not be the deciding issue. However, what the person proposes (religious in nature or otherwise) should be open to criticism and controversy. In fact, although our little group consists of members of various religions, we recognize the rights of all to profess their faith. However, as the old adage says "Religion and politics do not match".
Written by RhettsWife
on 8/23/2007
Jindal may well win but the way in which he's handled various episodes and issues during this campaign thus far hardly suggest that he would be an effective governor. He is intelligent and no one has ever disputed that but a governor has to be able to communicate to and lead all parties and elements within the state. The type of constituency involved is very different from that of a congressman. Also, Jindal's record as a congressman suggests that he doesn't often stray from GOP orthodoxy, except for his support of the massively pork-laden farm bill (to win support from La. farmers?) thus there's little to suggest any kind of independent thinking going on. Even if his views on religion are the product of intense personal soul-searching it's intriguing how much they manage to coincide with the GOP far right (protestant) fundamentalist agenda even though he's adopted Catholicism and not only that a Catholicism that embraces belief in demonic possession, etc. Catholicism used to mean and Pope John Paul II used to stress, as regards political and social issues, a deep respect for the blue-collar working man and a strong willingness to do things for all of those in need, in other words the opposite of the laissez-faire GOP far right fundamentalist view on such issues. If Jindal's Catholicism is so sincere one must question his strong alignment with the far right on so much. In summary, one is easily led to wonder whether Jindal's expressed views on many issues are borne of his deeply-held personal beliefs or they're borne of his desire to further his political career. His supporters ought well to remember that their hero has very little experience in the private sector, but rather that almost all of his career has been spent as a government bureaucrat or as a congressman in Washington whereas two of his opponents have built successful businesses, something that Jindal has never done, and another one has served in elected office at the state level, something, again, that Jindal has never done. Being an effective governor definitely means that some times one has to be independent and place the interests of and the issues of importance to the state as a whole above all else. Jindal's record and his views hardly suggest that he has much capability to do that.
Written by Richard P.
on 8/23/2007
Frank: Jindal says ". Yet Christ would not have demanded unity without providing the necessary leadership to maintain it. The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy." This says that Protestants are incapable of acurately interpreting the Bible, and you claim that Jindal isn't attacking Protestants? After watching the ad, it does have a minor error or two in it. Howeveer, the main theme of the ad is that Jindal's writings are insulting to non-Catholics. Frank, since Jindal thinks that you are incapable of following Christ's word, you are not insulted? And look, I wouldn't have run this commercial if I was in charge. I would have run more of the "best actor" commercial. That is a really great one! It provides way that Jindal looks like a hypocrite and even makes a jab at him not showing up to anything at the end. But Jindal does wear his religion on his sleeve. If it is ok for him to use his religion as he campaigns, then it MUST be ok for people to criticize what he has said about religion. ANYTHING a candidate says or does during his campaign is fair game.
Written by Dan
on 8/23/2007
I urge everyone to watch CNN's "God's Warrior's" tonight and you will learn about what some christian politicians
( especially born-again ones) are really up to. They believe, like fundamentalists Islman and Judaism, that there is a struggle going on for control of the planet's soul and that they are the ones who are going to lead the rest of us to their point of view. There is no doubt that Bobby Jindal is more closely aligned with the christian fundamentalists views than catholicism. The fact that he uses "God's" name to raise money is sad. One's religion is a private matter-now try telling that to someone like Jindal who wants us all to believe as he does. Same goes for George Bush. Don't push your religous views my way. This country will fight to have separation of church and state. Every other hope and prayer of fundamentalists is a wasted one.
Written by jamie M.
on 8/23/2007
It is simply amazing that there are so many intellectually bankrupt people including members of the media who are making unfounded vicious comments about Bobby Jindal based upon hearsay that comes from some Democrats who appear to be morally bankrupt themselves. The Dems have gone way over the line with their attack ads, but they get away with it because they know that there are so many people in Louisiana who are intellectually incapable of doing the research to seek the truth or they are lazy or quite possibly because they “can’t handle the truth!” or they don’t want to be confused with the truth. The article in question is available for “free” at the New Republic web site (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1609536/posts#comment). I suggest that members of the media and other people who want the truth go to this web site and read for themselves what Bobby Jindal wrote in 1996. Bobby Jindal is a man of deep faith and an intellectual with the gifts, knowledge and experience to bring about change in Louisiana. Do we (Louisiana) deserve this quality of a governor?
Written by William
on 8/22/2007
Bobby jindal is slowly blowing his opportunity to become governor tony g. is starting to look better everyday.
Written by anthony
on 8/22/2007
I must also say that Barney Frank did what most of the far left does when they don't really have a point. They yell, wave papers, refuse to allow the other to answer or ask a question, and generally poke fun. Owned Jindal? Don't think so. In fact, Frank admitted that he had not even read the two pages because it was already the law. He would not admit there were loopholes in those regulations that one could drive an 18 wheeler through and that Jindal was trying to close those. Perhaps that is why the criminals run the streets and housing in that part of New Orleans. Why are they in housing units that are needed by good families and the elderly?
Written by Sharon
on 8/22/2007
Dan, I watched Barney Frank attack Jindal who was trying to put language into a recommit bill that would have taken away any opportunity for an official or clerk to use "discretion" in applying rules in offering government housing. Barney Frank is a far left liberal who likes "discretion" when it applies to laws. Jindal was trying to make projects etc. safer for the families and elderly who live there. He was trying to make sure that the units went to the people they were meant for (the poor and elderly) and not to criminals and drug dealers. Barney Frank was being too cute by half in asking for Mr. Melancon to interpret a 2 page Instruction to Recommit. I was insulted by Barney Frank's assertion that just because someone had a criminal record or was convicted of selling drugs he/she should not be disqualified from being able to live in subsidized housing. I beg to differ. My tax dollars help to pay for that housing. I agree with Jindal. The criminal element should be kept out of this housing where they prey on the defenseless.
Written by Sharon
on 8/22/2007
One more thing, why don't people actually read what he wrote instead of assuming the ad must be right? THIS INCLUDES YOU, STEPHEN. Have you never heard of doing your own research before writing an article? If you don't understand the theological discussion, get a minister to read it and get his view. It isn't that hard. Jindal's writings are not that different from what I wrote about mine at that age. He defended his faith and views without savaging others and I have done the same, both in letters/college essays as well as verbally discussing and debating my faith. It's a sign of deep personal commitment, understanding where one stands and who one is, as well as a sign of being literate and thoughtful.
Written by Frank from LC
on 8/22/2007
I have seen the ad and I've read what Bobby actually wrote, and the two can't be any more different. Jindal's writings reveal a young man who had come to faith, not haphazardly or for political gain, but through honest study and personal experience. His arguments are well-reasoned, thoughtful, and backed by Scripture and quotes of varied theologians. Nowhere does he attack Protestants without also pointing the finger at the Catholic church and what it needs to change. I'm Methodist and find nothing offensive, but plenty I'd love to discuss with him about my views on the same subject. The biggest complaint that can be made is that his apologetics do not rise to the quality of a doctoral level theology student. But that's not what we're hiring him to do.
If he devotes this kind of thought and study to issues of the state, as I'm sure he will, he'll make an excellent governor.
Written by Frank from LC
on 8/22/2007
Cajun Joe, you raise some good points, especially about the anti-catholic history of the anglo world in which we live. Nevertheless, I either did not make myself clear or you miscontrued what I said. The same oil & gas machine that put Foster in office is backing Jindal, conceded. Because I think a Governor should do more than see to it that ExxonMobil and others can continue raping Louisiana, he is unlikely to receive my vote. Jindal has to prove his independence to get my vote. And from what I'm hearing about his campaign finance reports, I do not think he can. However, for the dems to use Karl Rove tactics, i.e., unite the W.A.S.P.s for political power, sits wrong with me no matter which political party does it. Both race baiting and anti-catholicism that is rampant in this Empire is intolerable. This does not mean that I am endorsing relativism. I believe that people should be entitled to their beliefs and the acts that flow from them. Unfortunately, the power brokers in the Anglo world have a history of using religion to empower themselves. This is the worst type of abuse and deception. Whether it is Cheney invading a country for oil or the Brits fighting for the Muslim Ottoman Turks against the Russians, so that their Empire would not have colonial competition, both are wrong and religion should not be blamed when the motivation is sheer power and greed!
Written by R.E. Lee
on 8/22/2007
P.S., Wear it with pride, Kelly - wear it with pride. You're a good sport.
Written by Tee Dub
on 8/22/2007
Sounds to me like Jindal has stepped in it. Many people I am talking to don't like him talking about their religion. He should stay out of other people's religion. People are unhappy about this a lot. Just heard a couple of guys in the barber shop say their vote for Jindal is gone now. Why is Jindal talking about this?
Written by Desperado
on 8/22/2007
Jindal cares about our kids? Are these the same kids who didn't get immunizations because he shuttered health clinics across the state? As I keep on saying, Louisiana went from No. 9 in childhood immunizations to No. 49 in just four short years. That's the legacy that bean counter Bobby Jindal left to Louisiana. THAT'S the kind of thing the Democrats should be focusing on - not his religious views (either current or past). In closing, I'll tell you who Bobby Jindal cares about - Bobby Jindal. He's a shameless self promoter. And check out his power rating in Congress - pas très bon. He's a partisan hack, period.
Written by Tee Dub
on 8/22/2007
Folks, what Jindal wrote, and how recently he wrote it, matters a great deal less than how accurately it was quoted, and in what context. I have more trouble with the Dems attempting to falsely portray his views than I do with his views, and I'm a Methodist. For all the heavy breathing about religious fanatics, there's a reason why Jesus is not in the Constitution, and why no relgious tests are allowed, and why witnesses and officials are allowed to affirm instead of swear for all oaths. If the Dems could have blown him up by a straight rendition of what he really wrote they would have done so. Instead, they did some hevay duty warping and picking. I agree with a comment on another blog; the only net effect of this ad will be to increase the margin of his victory.
Written by Kelly "Listric Faults" Haggar
on 8/22/2007
Sharon: I provided a "real quote" from Jindal as well. Jindal may have a "young face" but he doesn't bring "new ideas". Please name one new idea Jindal has proposed. And all I had to do is watch Jindal get "owned" by Barney Frank in a debate to see how lousy Jindal is doing in Congress. I mean, Barney Frank is an AWFUL speaker, yet he completely owned Jindal on the floor.
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
RhettsWife: While I personally would focus on Jindal's legislative and administrative record when attacking Jindal, the fact of the matter is that Jindal wears his religion on his sleeve and has openly used his religion in his campaigning. When someone uses religion to win an election, doesn't that open the door for people to use that person's religious statements to counter the campaign as well?
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
Just read a real quote from Jindal that we all can understand. “There’s an anxiety that if we don’t do it now, it won’t happen ... the country is watching us and we better get it right because if we don’t, our kids will be in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta; and our people are tired of having to leave home to pursue their dreams.” This is a clear indication that Jindal understands that Louisiana must change not just its image but the way it does business or the exit of our young people who are the last best hope for recovery. I think Jindal is a young, new face, brillant and has a lot of excellent ideas. But as I continue to stay, if you voters don't want agree vote for someone else. I think he is doing a great job in Congress. Just watch the debates in the House instead of watching or reading the soundbytes and you will see what I mean.
Written by Sharon
on 8/22/2007
He mentioned the two names and then said the rest of the bunch. I guess it can be construed either way. I took exception to it based on his letter about pulling the Dem's ads off of TV. I didn't see the Democrat's ad, however it apparently struck a nerve and probably justifiablly. When you attack someone's morals calling them corrupt without any basis for the accusation that equally as wrong. If you're going to take the high ground, stay there because once you fall in the mud, you're playing dirty.
Written by Tony G
on 8/22/2007
It is quite disappointing to hear that R.E. "Bobby" Lee is going to vote against "Chris Whittington" instead of "for Jindal". The original Bobby Lee could probably tell you a little something about principle (flawed or otherwise). He gave up all for his "principles". Of course that Bobby Lee also knew and understood war. My concern is "religious extremism". Bobby Jindal makes me terribly uneasy about it. I only need to turn on the TV and see the evening news and I see what "religious extremism" is doing in the Middle East and where we are stuck (with Jindal's vote in support of the war) in a war of occupation against "religious extremism" and "religious fanatics". But, remember that "religious extremism" is dangerous in all its forms. Why? Because it is always "man's interpretation" of who God is rather than God speaking. It bothers me greatly that Jindal sounds as though he is running for pope instead of governor of Louisiana. His fanatical writings are and always will be his fanatical writings. The cajuns (who I know a little bit about...hahaha) were persecuted by the "religious fanaticism" of the English Empire. Cajuns were accused of "popery" when they were exiled as well as for not swearing an oath to the English king. Rather than damning the messenger (who cares about Chris Whittington...if not him it would be someone else), he should clear up the confusion. Otherwise, are we to think that perhaps deep down within himself, there may come a time when Jindal thinks that protestants should be exiled as heretics. There was a time in Germany when no one could have imagined what eventually went on there, yet the signs were ALWAYS there. We were smart enough to flush a "racist bigot" by the name of David Duke down the political toilet eventually. Now, must we contend with a "religious bigot"?
Written by Cajun Joe
on 8/22/2007
Frankly, dears, one's religious convictions should not be the basis for any election. We are interested in seeing more concrete propositions for the future and not the same old garbage. Every candidate, including Mr. Jindal, should show what they intend to do not what they claim to have done. It is time for the citizens to evelauate the individual on their plans for the future and not for their political, religious, business, etc. backgrounds.
Written by RhettsWife
on 8/22/2007
Just to show the Teepell spin of this issue, he states "The very first sentence of Bobby's article says exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Democrats accuse him: He said, "we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins."" HOWEVER, the full quote is ". Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other. " Clearly Jindal elevates Catholicism above any other Christian denomination with this statement.
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
And on the "clown ad", I find it hypocritical of Jindal to one week state that you can run for office without putting down other candidates and then the very next week run ads contrary to that belief. For Jindal to "attack" the use of attack ads and then create an attack ad that is based on wild paranoid accusations that claim Boasso and Campbell are clowns is a clear hypocricy. If Jindal wanted to run attack ads, fine. He shouldn't have spoken so harshly against attack ads previously.
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
Al: I now doubt Jindal's intelligence, or at least his ability to form a logical thought. He is constantly implying that people who are against him being governor are against ethics reform. This is clearly illogical.
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
Sharon: " They are attempting to imply that Jindal as a Catholic believes that Protestents are not "true believers". Absurd. " Actually, it is not absurd. Jindal clearly states that the Catholic Church is only entity that can determine what the Bible means. http://www.jindalisbad.com/jindal-clearly-believes-that-protestantism-is-wrong/
Written by Dan
on 8/22/2007
Personally, I'd rather a Governor more worried about getting a chicken in every pot than a bible in every classroom. As for this "Community of Faith"--what's that all about? It sounds like an attempt to unite through slogan. What community is united just in virtue of its members believing in something that can't be proved through empirical evidence? Are atheist children who believe in the Easter Bunny members of this community? Is a crackpot who proclaims himself God a member? And as for Teepell's lamebrain remarks, they make me want to stand more with those dreaded "political operatives" who want to "secularize our society" than with Jindal and his bible-thumping lot. I want a Governor who'll work Monday through Friday to keep the roads repaired and the schools open. If he wants to pursue matters of "faith" let him do so on Saturday or Sunday, away from the office.
Written by David (neither Vitter nor Duke)
on 8/22/2007
Woah Tony G!!!! I saw that ad it directly named TWO just TWO candidates (You were not either) I believe that he was talking about the "Clowns" that had been in Government had been corrupt and had the opportunity to fight corruption but chose NOT TO! Now that said and I have said it before I don't consider you one on the clowns because you will fight the corruption if you win. I bet if you as Jindal he will say it wasn't about you but about the real clowns Boasso, Campbell and others! and credit union, I include C. Ray "Let em Drown" Nagin in the category of CLOWN! T.W. I think it would be ok if Jindal posted them because there are HIS writings an Author has the right to publish and display his own work. (by the way I am an OLE JARHEAD! no need to use quotes around it.)I think your right, him posting them would completely open the dems up to critisisms about the demeanor of their ad! Cajun Joe watch, untill qualifying is over I doubt you will hear him debate.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 8/22/2007
I have written often that I am opposed to a La. Coronation because we need to find out exactly where politicians stand before election, so that we can hold them accountable later. This can only be done by forced debate, and not a coronation. On this issue though, I will come to Jindal's aid. Stephen, there is a philosophical contradiction that the Masons, who founded this country, tried to impose, and I refer to the foolish notion that you can separate a man's beliefs from his actions in office, a/k/a the alleged separation of church and state. You show me a man's actions, and I will show you his beliefs. Likewise, if a man's actions do not correspond to his beliefs, his beliefs will eventually correspond with his actions in order to justify them. I appreciate the fact that Bobby can take a stand on his beliefs. And I also appreciate that he identifies himself as a religious man, because if religion is not a proper subject for debate, then implicitly it reduces its value to something less than money. It is because of some of these inherent contradictions imposed on us by the Masonic forefathers from the East Coast, that this former Republic is becoming an Empire. Unfortunately, many men only want to use religion for extending their political power, Karl Rove is a perfect example of this. But Bobby is sincere, he has to be because he would not have expressed himself clearly if he were just trying to pull a Karl Rove and use religion. Teepell was correct in identifying this democratic attack as being wolves in sheeps clothing, i.e. secularists dems attacking religion through use of divisive tactics. If Chris Whittington, state dem. chair, keeps this up, he will force me to vote for Bobby, even if he does not debate and just does Mike Foster and Boysie Bollinger's bidding. Deo Vindici!
Written by R.E. Lee
on 8/22/2007
The last comment was mine.
Written by Sharon
on 8/22/2007
Well Al you have a good reason to worry that soundbytes help voters decide how they will cast their vote. In this country the lack of understanding of the issues and lack of knowlege of how the government works is only eclipsed by the low voter turnout. Some think it is funny that most college students cannot name high officials in our government or what the 3 branches of the Federal Government are. I don't. What this country sorely needs is a more informed electorate. And IMHO if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.
Written by
on 8/22/2007
I don't believe Jindal is a religous fanntic. I think that he is an ambitious and very intelligent man who knows where he is goinhg and how he is going to get there. It is easier to be elected as a Chritian than a Hindu. I think tht he had this figured out when he was a teenager. I don't believe bobby woke up one day and said I think I want to be the governor and then the president. I hope not, but it is possible.
Written by al
on 8/22/2007
bobby Jindal is probably the best man for the job, but several things still disturb me. Whenever a young man is very ambitious, he knows where he is going much sooner than the rest of us. He makes plans very early in life. I just wonder if Jindal made the switch to Christianity knowing he could never be elected as a Hindu.But regradless Jindal is the best man so far. No one doubts his intelligence. JUst not knowing the motives of a very ambitious young man bothers me some. I guess there is no difference than George Bush knowing he was going to use the religious right to put him in the White House. I don't believe this country and this state has ever needed leadership like it does today. We just need some genuine men or women as leaders. It scares me to know that sound bites will determine mos tpeople decision of who to vote for. I guess I am just a doubting Thomas.
Written by al
on 8/22/2007
bobby Jindal is probably the best man for the job, but several things still disturb me. Whenever a young man is very ambitious, he knows where he is going much sooner than the rest of us. He makes plans very early in life. I just wonder if Jindal made the switch to Christianity knowing he could never be elected as a Hindu.But regradless Jindal is the best man so far. No one doubts his intelligence. JUst not knowing the motives of a very ambitious young man bothers me some. I guess there is no difference than George Bush knowing he was going to use the religious right to put him in the White House. I don't believe this country and this state has ever needed leadership like it does today. We just need some genuine men or women as leaders. It scares me to know that sound bites will determine mos tpeople decision of who to vote for. I guess I am just a doubting Thomas.
Written by al
on 8/22/2007
My reply to Mr. Jindal's ad.
Citizens of Louisiana, I stand here today as a competitor for the State's
highest office. A recent ad labeled me as well as others as corrupt
clowns that show up every four years. Some of the candidates were
mentioned by name. I find this to be offensive that Mr. Jindal would
choose to categorize and profile anyone who has taken the time and effort
exercising thier right to be a candidates for Governor of Louisiana. Just
because we have different values and ideas in no way labels us as corrupt.
In light of Mr. Jindal's outcry concerning a recent ad he found offensive
he chooses to let this one ad out for public interpetation. One would
have to ask themselves is this how Mr. Jindal will operate if elected?
Anyone with a different idea than him he'll label a clown. The office of
Governor will demand that the leader of this state work with the diversity
of many individuals who undoubtedly will think differently. The leader of
this state will need to build consensus to move this state forward.
Belittling efforts of individuals because they do not agree will only lead
to two things, four years of turmoil and the stagnation of our state. I
have sat in the debates and forums with the other candidates. Despite my
lack of political experience and the differences in philosophies I have
been treated with the utmost respect. Never once have I been refered to
as a corrupt clown. Mr. Jindal although these words did not come from
your mouth you are ultimately responsible for the action of your campaign
team. They are a reflection of you and your leadership ability. In light
of this senseless act of character assassination I demand an apology not
only for myself but the other candidates as well.
I'm Anthony "Tony G" Gentile and I approve of this message.
Written by Tony
on 8/22/2007
Jindal's true colors have finally been flushed out. Jindal is a religious fanatic who, if elected, will turn government services into a referendum on religion.
Jindal is the political equivalent of Katrina enroute. Now that Jindal is exposed for what he is, a zealot, now we can start evaluating more serious and effective candidates such as, guess who-Ray Nagin.
Written by credit union
on 8/22/2007
I am curious as to what "young" Bobby and "mature" Bobby feel about Hindus and Muslims as well. I presume from reading Stephen's article that "young" Bobby considers them infidels. Hmmmmmmmm. Sounds like a "crusade" coming somewhere. That was the same torch that lit Europe on fire for 500 years and was the word that this President Bush used inadvertantly that inflamed the muslim passions and caused Al Quida to gain more "rank and file" support than they otherwise would have. All of this makes me deeply concerned about which Bobby is out there, since he runs away from any debate or effort by the media to cross-examine where his "current" head is on anything. I want neither a chicken or a religious fanatic to be our governor. Considering how much campaigning Jindal has done in churches and money raising there, too, I wonder why they are offended that he would be called to task on the issue that Mr. Teepell "co-opted" and tried to turn it into a them (the godless) vs us (the annointed and appointed warrior of God). Stephen, you are right. They railed against bringing religion into it and then tried to use religion to their advantage. Such writings show the "young" Bobby to be fanatical. At least we knew where the "young" Bobby stood (by the way is he "old" yet?). We don't know where the "mature" Bobby stands on anything anymore because he has become the "chicken" Bobby. It is time for "ANY" Bobby to show up and put up. And it is also time to throw the "money changers" out of the temple and start talking about health care, education, economic development, etc. We are all getting sick of the religious pandering.
Written by Cajun Joe
on 8/22/2007
Stephen, I was able to read some of the writings referred to. As a Catholic, I feel that the Louisiana Democratic Party is using a tactic the National Party has used for decades (except for Kennedy. For him they did the opposite). They are attempting to imply that Jindal as a Catholic believes that Protestents are not "true believers". Absurd. He is a man of great faith. He will always be attacked for that. Progressives do not (no matter what they say) believe that anyone but them control what happens. This ad distorts and takes out of context what Jindal wrote and distorts his beliefs. I am not surprised that this ad was made. It was very preictable.
Stephen, I am, however and hope you are also, very surprised that will all the attention this ad has had not just in Louisiana but nationally, Senator Mary Landrieu's response when asked what she (as a Catholic) thought of the ad and if it should be pulled, her response was "what ad?" Her office said that the Senator had not seen it. When asked if she would watch it, they said if it was playing on a TV she was near she might. WOW! How is that for being in touch?
Written by Sharon
on 8/22/2007
Good article, Stephen. Thanks for taking Teepell to task over his over-the-top statement. I would like to suggest something that "Ole Jarhead" mentioned in passing on another thread. I think Bobby should (if it is allowed via copyright laws) make the entire articles in question available on his website, so that folks can make an informed decision about whether he's anti-Protestant, etc. If the Democrats are distorting his positions, then this should be evident in the essays themselves. If not, then there's still the possibility that Jindal has matured since writing them, or disagrees with positions he once held. But right now, unless you're willing to buck up the money to read the things, we're all relying on other people to do the interpreting for us - and I, for one, would like to see them for myself.
It’s become the holy jihad of Louisiana politics. 